Yep! I follow it thoroughly. Seems like the Russians are experiencing limited succes around Bahkmut, where as the Ukrainians are collapsing the entire Kherson front as the Russians retreat to the left side of the Dnieper.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Their ability to be engaged in a protracted high intensity campaign of this magnitude for which they were not prepared or equipped for. Contrast Russian performance in the Donbas where they dominated the EW spectrum and created extremely effective strike/recce complexes comprising UASs, arty and MLRSs; a type of campaign they were trained and equipped for; unlike what they faced in the Ukraine.
Most if us assumed that the war would be a short one because we assumed that the Russians were prepared and equipped for a conflict of this magnitude and complexity. Who amongst us knew that the Russians had major manpower issues or that units would be told they were going in only 3 days prior and would not face determined resistance?
Despite the signs being there most of us never thought that the Russian air force was not trained or equipped to wage a strategic air campaign. Most assumed it would deploy air power the way the West would but if faced against an enemy which adopted a strategy of limited air denial and adopted various innovative tactics [[which the Serbs did in 1999]; how would Western air power fare?
I'd also question how other armies would fare if required to undertake a strategic operation of this magnitude in a country the size of the Ukraine. Back to the Russians; I believe that they've actually performed much or slightly better in certain areast than commonly thought. It's just that it's still early days and there's a lot we don't know.
Last edited:
Agreed. Russians have been throwing meat into the grinder in wars for as long as I can remember. They have no problem making gains through "zerg" rushes that are incredibly costly to their manpower. They're far from done, especially because Putin cannot politically endure a loss in this conflict and gell do anything and everything to desperately hold onto power.
SolarisKenzo
Active Member
Why would any country want Ukraine to have access to weapons such as ATACMS, Tomahawks, Storm Shadows...?
West interest is to weaken Russia as much as possible, not to help Ukraine becoming a military power.
Bureaus in Europe and USA are working to help their own country, not others. Thats the reason why weapons are given to AFU only when needed and why no strategic-capable weapons was given.
There is zero willing to arm an unstable country such as Ukraine at this specific moment, and there is zero willing to really achieve a victory over Russia.
A long, low-intensity war is the goal of NATO, so that both countries will drain resources in fighting the war.
I suggest to have a look at the very well made and precise websites of the European Union, that explains how Europe have no real intention to send the refugees back to Ukraine as they can alleviate Europe's birthrate and workforce problem.
knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu
www.ecb.europa.eu
www.consilium.europa.eu
West interest is to weaken Russia as much as possible, not to help Ukraine becoming a military power.
Bureaus in Europe and USA are working to help their own country, not others. Thats the reason why weapons are given to AFU only when needed and why no strategic-capable weapons was given.
There is zero willing to arm an unstable country such as Ukraine at this specific moment, and there is zero willing to really achieve a victory over Russia.
A long, low-intensity war is the goal of NATO, so that both countries will drain resources in fighting the war.
I suggest to have a look at the very well made and precise websites of the European Union, that explains how Europe have no real intention to send the refugees back to Ukraine as they can alleviate Europe's birthrate and workforce problem.
Forced displacement from Ukraine: the role of the diaspora | Knowledge for policy
A
knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu
The impact of the influx of Ukrainian refugees on the euro area labour force
The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank of the European Union countries which have adopted the euro. Our main task is to maintain price stability in the euro area and so preserve the purchasing power of the single currency.
Refugees from Ukraine in the EU
Millions of people have fled the war in Ukraine to seek refuge in the EU. How many Ukrainian refugees are in the EU?
www.consilium.europa.eu
It has been their woeful logistical incompetence, 18th century style top down military leadership, with little unit level autonomy and disastrous coordination and communication, that caused this mess in the first place.
They're literally writing the script for how not to fight modern military offensive. I'm wondering if retreating from kherson and further consolidating their troops will finally give them the ability to focus enough in one direction to do something competently.
Am I surprised, however, that a nation who still has 20-25% of its people go to the bathroom outside in 2022, and who are taking washing machines as war trophies, as if it's alien technology, has been woefully incompetent? I certainly should not be.
Last edited:
The fact that they're were not prepared or trained for a high intensity protracted fight; plus flawed assumptions made by the political leadership are the main causes.
An army trained and equipped for short wars and which faced severe manpower issues was required to undertake a strategic campaign on 4 axes over a 1,000 over kilometre frontage; backed by an air arm not trained for a strategic air power campaign.
You mean to tell me that Russia's military is paying the price for deep levels of corruption and incompetence at the leadership level, all the way down?.. That's become painfully obvious for the world to see.
It's the job of the West now, through the hands of the Ukrainians, to tighten the screws and continue to make Russia pay, dearly, for their strategic mistep. That's why sending all this old, mostly stored equipment to Ukraine, makes a lot of sense. You'll never destroy the Russian army for a generation, at a cheaper price. The West has frozen roughly $300 Billion USD in Russian foreign assets. Profiting from said confiscation, in order to recuperate their investment in Ukraine, will give the West a nice little war chest to continue supplying Ukraine through 2023, as Russia's economy continues to retract and increasing pressure mounts on Western corporations who have not left Russia yet. Keep tightening the screws, slowly and skillfully.
I suspect you'll shortly see the United States announce another enormous, Congressional funding package for Ukraine aimed at supplying them through 2023, further complicating the war effort for the Russians, who are quickly chewing through their modern army equipment and sending lesser trained, lesser equipped conscripts into the fray as replacement fodder.
Those four oblasts are not, according to what their populations say, populated more by ethnic Russians than ethnic Ukrainians. Do not assume that everyone who speaks Russian better than Ukrainian is Russian. Zelensky's first language is Russian. I have friends in Wales. Most of them speak English, & little if any Welsh. But they're Welsh, & would be offended if I called them English. Most of the population of Ireland speak little or no Irish, & communicate with each other in English.
Only Crimea (not one of the four) had a majority self-declaring themselves as Russian before Russian occupation made calling oneself Ukrainian a high-risk activity. Donets & Luhansk had very large minorities (ca 40%), & Kherson (15%) & Zaporizhzhia (25%) large minorities - but minorities.
LANGUAGE IS NOT ETHNICITY.
You're repeating Russian propaganda.Why would any country want Ukraine to have access to weapons such as ATACMS, Tomahawks, Storm Shadows...?
West interest is to weaken Russia as much as possible, not to help Ukraine becoming a military power.
Bureaus in Europe and USA are working to help their own country, not others. Thats the reason why weapons are given to AFU only when needed and why no strategic-capable weapons was given.
There is zero willing to arm an unstable country such as Ukraine at this specific moment, and there is zero willing to really achieve a victory over Russia.
A long, low-intensity war is the goal of NATO, so that both countries will drain resources in fighting the war.
I suggest to have a look at the very well made and precise websites of the European Union, that explains how Europe have no real intention to send the refugees back to Ukraine as they can alleviate Europe's birthrate and workforce problem.
Forced displacement from Ukraine: the role of the diaspora | Knowledge for policy
AThe impact of the influx of Ukrainian refugees on the euro area labour force
The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank of the European Union countries which have adopted the euro. Our main task is to maintain price stability in the euro area and so preserve the purchasing power of the single currency.Refugees from Ukraine in the EU
Millions of people have fled the war in Ukraine to seek refuge in the EU. How many Ukrainian refugees are in the EU?
Firstly, NATO countries definitely don't want a long war. War is expensive. They want it to be as short as possible.
The discussions of refugees you link to aren't policy documents. The ECB one is an analysis of what they think will happen in the event of a protracted war, not an argument for such a war.
In response to your comments I mean to tell you [which I did in previous posts] that a large part of the Russian failure has to do with the simple fact that contrary to assumptions most of us had the Russian army was not prepared to wage a protracted high intensity war. For the past few years modernisation/reforms were based on the premise that wars faced would be short limited ones like in Georgia, Syria, Chechnya and the Donbas.
As for corruption it has certainly been a major issue but one which has been exaggerated; even if there was no corruption the Russian army would still have failed to secure its key objectives.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Is 3% the RU official announcement ?
Other indicators are present pointing to economic troubles:
Russia Privately Warns of Deep and Prolonged Economic Damage
Russia may face a longer and deeper recession as the impact of US and European sanctions spreads, handicapping sectors that the country has relied on for years to power its economy, according to an internal report prepared for the government.
www.bloomberg.com
Inflation is 12-15%
700,000 working age Russians fled the country
About 700,000 people have left Russia in two weeks of mobilisation
UKRAINSKA PRAVDA - TUESDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2022, 16:21 In less than two weeks after the partial mobilisation was announced, about 700,000 people left Russia. Source: Forbes, citing multiple sources Details: According to one source, almost 1 million people have left Russia since the beginning of the...
No collapse, but probably a lot of stress. We dont want the RU economy to totally collapse and RU slip into anarchy where nuclear weapons are sold on the black market.
Are you sure that was the premise? Sources please. And whose premise are you referring to? Putin certainly believed Russia's armed forces could do the job -- seems he still believes that since he is still at it. Strange that he could believe that if the "premise" of Russian armed forces were so different.
Are you sure about that? The widespread corruption at all levels has weakened not just the equipment and performance but also the morale. Also think about the following: Since the main motivation for many Russian soldiers is not to do "a good job" but to rather steal as much as possible -- how do you think that affects their performance? Whether they working in the administration, a general planning a battle, a trainer training somebody -- the widespread corruption leads to a corrupt culture, leading to breakdown and issues not just at unit level, but weakening at system level.
It's been shocking to see their army absolutely turtle in the face of an even reasonably armed defender. This is not a Ukraine flying F-35's and F-16V's, being fed real time information by AWACs. This is not a Ukraine with access to cruise missiles, or any modern, long range missiles. This is not a Ukraine with modern, Western, main battle tanks. This is not a Ukraine with any modern IFVs. This is not a Ukraine with any notable Naval power. This is not a Ukraine with top notch, hitech drones... We're talking about one of the poorest countries in Europe, using mostly Soviet era technology, with a smattering of Western weapons, much of which is also Soviet era.
Very impressive will power by the Ukrainians, but equally disastrous execution by the Russians.
Ukrainians are partying in the streets after the liberation of Kherson, following the Russian retreat to safety, across the Dnieper...
Ananda
The Bunker Group
That assumption is base on Ukranian and present Western take.
Ethnic Russians in Ukraine: A look back
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: I started my PhD work back in 1989. And as you can imagine, the most interesting thing in the world was that the Wall came down and the Soviet empire was collapsing, and the nationalities of the former Soviet Union were starting to explode. I did my research on...
www.gzeromedia.com
This guy for example is not Pro Russian anything, and as Western academics he spend much time in Ukraine learning ethnics divisions on Ukraine.
This kind of thinking off course not fall on present agenda in West that want to put everything in Russian invasion and no ethnic division in Ukraine not even in East.
I'm puting this as to response on comment comparing Russian occupation in all part of Ukraine, same thing as US occupation in Afghanistan. They are part of Ukraine that have significant of population that support Russian invasion. Crimea one thing and big part of those four oblasts is other thing. Remember Kherson is basically surender to Russia in March with very minimal fight from local militia there.
This is not saying that Ukranian will not going to be able to push back Russian from much of those four oblasts. However it does not say also Russian will not going to hold much of their hold on those four oblasts, and moreover there will be uprising of much of population of those area toward Russian occupation.
More importantly it is totally different with Afghanistan against US occupation.
I've posted in this thread several videos featuring Michael Kofman and others discussing the Russian military. You can also look at War On The Rocks for some excellent analysis.
Like I said; corruption was a major issue but it has been overplayed and exaggerated and even if there was no corruption the Russians would still have failed.
It's also not a Russian army trained or equipped for the task at hand. Remember; with insufficient resources [namely a shortage of manpower] it conducted a strategic invasion comprising 4 non mutually supportive axes over a 1,000 frontage. Like I also said; units were severely understrenght; were only told they were crossing the border 3 days prior and were told not to expect any alternatives esusyance.
Would NATO which is better trained and equipped have performed any better? Who knows but I won't assume it would have.
With regards to real time intel are sure it's not being shared? On the air war you'll have noticed that both sides have achieved mutual limited air denial. Could the Ukrainians have achieved some of what they did [the attack on the Crimean airfield comes to mind] without intel assistance? Remember; it's not just HIMARS and other kit but HIMARS and other kit with the ability to locate/detect and hit targets at a considerable distance.
This is a Ukraine which is the 2nd largest country in Europe; one which has a large standing army and a large pool of manpower it can draw on; one operating on home turf; one which has learned hard lessons from the Donbas campaign; one which has benefited from training assistance provided by NATO over the years ; one which is the beneficiary of external material and intel assistance and one fairly familiar with Russian mindset and doctrine.
Irrepective; even if they had Predators and other high end UASs the result would have been the same; they have the very effective TB2 which despite not being as high end as other UASs: does the job well. Also, the Ukrainians learnt a lot from the Donbas campaign where the Russians operated UASs very effectively at an operational and tactical level; as part of recce/strike complexes.
Last edited:
Per the Pentagon,
Their analysis is that Russia has likely lost half of it's tanks, used up most of its precision weapons and has suffered tens of thousands of casualties...
Disaster.
thehill.com
Their analysis is that Russia has likely lost half of it's tanks, used up most of its precision weapons and has suffered tens of thousands of casualties...
Disaster.
Pentagon: Russia has likely lost half its tanks in Ukraine
Russia has likely lost half its tanks, used up most of its precision-guided weapons and suffered tens of thousands of casualties so far in its war against Ukraine, the Pentagon’s top poli…
thehill.com
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
ATACMS and Tomahawks keep increasing the pain on the RU. With those 2, the threat to the RU navy and Crimean land bridge increases and may put it permanently (for the duration of the war) out of commission. This then puts the RU logistical trail to Crimea and Kherson province on a single railroad line, which is within artillery range of the front lines now.
Keep the interdiction on the RU logistics and you have a better chance of clearing Kherson province.
If RU keeps escalating, then I guess further equipment goes in country. F-16 ? Patriots ?
I do not believe NATO doctrine would have allowed an invading force to be so underwhelming in nature, and so woefully incable of embarking on a 4-pronged attack.
Look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly in the early hours. That's how you use combined arms, and overwhelming force to devastate a military opponent. It was not only surgical in nature, but also carefully coordinated and orchestrated. The Russians were extremely sloppy by comparison, and they were only going next door, not half a world away.
Incredibly underwhelming effort, with more than 30 years for the Russians to learn from that American triumph.
This is exactly it. The reason to ramp up supplies to Ukraine is strictly to inflict pain on the Russians, for as long as the Ukrainians have the will to fight. The better the technology and quality of weapons you supply the Ukrainians with, the more damage you can inflict on their already, deeply stressed military infrastructure, and the more Russian families that receive Lada's instead of the intact return of their loved ones. That will, eventually, lead to political pressure on Putin and his cronies. That's an excellent outcome for the West.